Pages

Monday, April 17, 2017

From
the Aryans to Aurangzeb, from St Xavier to Shivaji, our historians have
chosen what to hide, what to invent, and what to disclose. The singular
reason for this is the craving for patronage – of an ideology, a
government, an ecosystem, or a clique. And once our historians are done
with their contortions, we the readers sit back and enjoy the inevitable
fallout – the outing of Hypocrisy.
The Left outs the hypocrisy of
the Right and the Right outs the hypocrisy of the Left and great
column-yards are churned out as a result of such skirmishes. But we
forget – outing of hypocrisy is a virtue so long as it doesn’t turn one
into a hypocrite. Well, it does; every single time. Villains are made
into heroes and heroes into villains. We like it this way. Gandhi,
Nehru, Savarkar, Patel – they are to be worshipped; they are to be made
into Gods, into Atlases who carry the weight of our ideologies and our
biases on the nape of their necks.
History as myth; myth as
History. It conforms to what we really are – unsure of our present,
fearful of our future. The Right wing doesn’t want to hear anything
about Savarkar or Golwalkar that might put them in bad light; the Left-wing doesn’t want to hear anything about Nehru or Namboodiripad
that might put them in bad light; and the Velcro Historians don’t want
to write anything about anyone that might put them in solitary
confinement, away from all light.
Fear and trembling, that is what
this is, and the whole nation chugs along on this dead yet simmering
coal. A journey to nowhere; slow, halting, tiring; until you realise
what the grand plan always is – to appropriate. And of all the great men
and women we have had the honour to call our own, no one has been more
appropriated than Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar.
Ambedkar. A hero for
all, the Left and the Right – out of genuine admiration, out of genuine
fear. This is to be expected, for here was a man like no other in modern
world history, one who shone like a star with his intellect and
understanding. The most un-Indian Indian. Wisdom so frightening and yet
so rooted, that it appealed to all. Where he was allowed to, he never
put a foot wrong. His writings have that rare quality of timelessness,
and his quotes, if quoted anonymously, can be mistaken as comments on
contemporary India. Ambedkar has aged well. In this, he stands alone,
afar, above. But there is a side to Ambedkar that is not known, spoken,
or written, out of fear by those who have appropriated him.
Ambedkar's
criticism of Hinduism, as a religion, as a way of life – call it what
you will, everyone is aware of. From his umpteen speeches and numerous
scholarly works, we know Ambedkar as someone who fought and exposed the
terrible ills of Hinduism, and we applaud him for it. That Ambedkar left
Hinduism and converted to Buddhism is in itself a stinging appraisal of
the former. Knowing him, nothing more needs to be said as a critique of
Hinduism. Such is the trust one can put in the man.
What we don’t
know, however, is what he thought of the other great religion of the
world – Islam. Because this facet of Ambedkar has been hidden from our
general discourse and textbooks, it may come as a surprise to most that
Ambedkar thought frequently of Islam and spoke frequently on it. The
cold and cruel India of the young Ambedkar, that shaped his views on
Hinduism and Hindus – and of which this author has written
previously – soon became the cold and cruel India of the old Ambedkar,
allowing him, through a study of Islam and Muslims, to make sense of a
nation hurtling towards a painful and bloody partition.
A distillate of Ambedkar's thoughts on Islam and Muslims can be found in Pakistan Or The Partition Of India,
a collection of his writings and speeches, first published in 1940,
with subsequent editions in 1945 and 1946. It is an astonishing book in
its scope and acuity, and reading it one realises why no one talks of
it, possessing as it does the potential to turn Ambedkar into an
Islamophobic bigot for his worshippers on the Left.
Here, then, is Ambedkar on Islam:"Hinduism
is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people
together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as
it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes
between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very
alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal
brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There
is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that
corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing
but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a
system of social self-government and is incompatible
with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not
rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to
which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well
with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule
of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin."
This
scathing indictment by Ambedkar of Islam never finds a mention in our
history books. (Indeed, even in Ambedkar.org, a primary resource site
for Ambedkar, the chapter that contains this explosive passage is
hyperlinked and, unlike other preceding chapters, not easily visible as a
continuation under the sub-heading Part IV. The idea is to skip it, not click it.
But
then this is India – a Hero must not be perceived as a Villain even
though the misperception is entirely of our making. Well, we know
better; he didn’t mean to say those things about Islam; perhaps he was
misguided; let us look at the context; damn, no, that's not of any help
here; tell you what, let us gag him; for the greater good; for communal
harmony; for the sake of IPC Section 295A and our peaceful future.
Selective
reading of Ambedkar, by which it is meant reading only his damning (and
entirely justified) criticism of Hinduism, has led to a prevalent view
that only Hinduism is laden with cultural and religious ills. One can
see this even today, when the Left and its ideologues point selectively
to the social and religious evils pertaining to Hinduism. As a result,
someone who isn’t well-versed with India may get the impression that it
is only Hinduism and Hindus who are to blame for every ill and
intolerance that plagues us. The reality, of course, is that social and
religious intolerance runs in our veins, it always has and it always
will, for none other than the holy scriptures of all religions have
mainstreamed it. It is Ambedkar himself who, presciently and fiercely, points to this hypocrisy."The
social evils which characterize the Hindu Society, have been well
known. The publication of 'Mother India' by Miss Mayo gave these evils
the widest publicity. But while 'Mother India' served the purpose of
exposing the evils and calling their authors at the bar of the world to
answer for their sins, it created the unfortunate impression throughout
the world that while the Hindus were grovelling in the mud of these
social evils and were conservative, the Muslims in India were free from
them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a progressive people. That,
such an impression should prevail, is surprising to those who know the
Muslim Society in India at close quarters."
Ambedkar then
proceeds to talk in scathing terms of child-marriage, intolerance,
fanatical adherence to faith, the position of women, polygamy, and other
such practices prevalent among believers of Islam. On the subject of
caste, Ambedkar goes into great detail, and no punches are pulled."Take
the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that
Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing
needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed
much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. But if
slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. There can thus be
no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the
same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims
have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That
something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women."
Those
who rightly commend Ambedkar for leaving the fold of Hinduism, never
ask why he converted to Buddhism and not Islam. It is because he viewed
Islam as no better than Hinduism. And keeping the political and cultural
aspects in mind, he had this to say:"Conversion to Islam or
Christianity will denationalise the Depressed Classes. If they go to
Islam the number of Muslims will be doubled and the danger of Muslim domination also becomes real."
On Muslim politics, Ambedkar is caustic, even scornful."There
is thus a stagnation not only in the social life but also in the
political life of the Muslim community of India. The Muslims have no
interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion.
This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim
constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat.
The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the programme of the
candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate is that he
should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new
ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid because the old
one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated.
In some places a Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if the
candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast and in other if he agrees to
buy votes for so much a piece. With the Muslims, election is a mere
matter of money and is very seldom a matter of social programme of
general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular
categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor,
capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and
superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes
only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims.
None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of
the Muslim community and if they do find a place—and they must because
they are irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only
governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion."
The
psychoanalysis of the Indian Muslim by Ambedkar is unquestionably
deeply hurtful to those on the Left who have appropriated him. How they
wish he had never written such things. They try their best to dismiss
his writings on Islam and Muslims by taking refuge in the time-tested
excuse of "context". That's right. Whenever text troubles you, rake up
its context.
Except that in the case of Ambedkar, this excuse
falls flat. Ambedkar's views on Islam – in a book with fourteen chapters
that deal almost entirely with Muslims, the Muslim psyche, and the
Muslim Condition – are stand-alone statements robustly supported with
quotes and teachings of scholars, Muslim leaders, and academics. To him
these are maxims. He isn’t writing fiction. The context is superfluous;
in fact, it is non-existent. Read the following statements:The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There
is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that
corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing
but contempt and enmity.The second defect of Islam is
that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible
with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not
rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to
which he belongs.Wherever there is the rule of Islam,
there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true
Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith
and kin.
If you are hunting for a context to the above
statements, you have just outed yourself as a hopeless apologist. Well,
you are not alone. Some of India’s most celebrated hagiographers,
commentators, writers, and columnists, that include Ramachandra Guha and
Arundhati Roy – both of whom have written copiously on Ambedkar,
through stand-alone chapters or books (The Doctor and the Saint; India after Gandhi; Democrats and Dissenters; Makers of Modern India)
– are conspicuously silent on Ambedkar’s views on Islam and the Muslim
psyche. Clearly, this is a story the apologists do not want to tell.
The
one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist. He spares no one, not
even Mahatma Gandhi, who he blasts for giving into the selective bias,
of the type one finds ubiquitous today."He [Gandhi] has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus."
Ambedkar then goes on to list a few Hindu leaders who were killed by Muslims, one among them being Rajpal, the publisher of Rangeela Rasool,
the ‘Satanic Verses’ equivalent of pre-Independence India. We all know
what happened to Rushdie. As for Rajpal, he met a fate worse than the
celebrated Indian author. Rajpal was brutally stabbed in broad daylight.
Again, not many know the assassination of Rajpal by Ilm-ud-din was
celebrated by all prominent Muslims leaders of the day.
Ilm-ud-din
was defended in the court by none other than Jinnah, and the man who
rendered a eulogy at his funeral (that was attended by tens of thousands
of mourners) was none other than
the famous poet Allama Iqbal, who cried as the assassin's coffin was
lowered: "We sat idle while this carpenter's son took the lead." Iqbal
is revered in India; Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal,
recently conferred on him the title of Tarana-E-Hind. “Nation will never forget Iqbal,” she said.
Ambedkar writes: "Mr.
Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and
every act of violence and has forced the Congress, much against its will
to condemn it. But Mr Gandhi has never protested against such murders
[of Hindus]. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages,
but even Mr Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn
them. He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained
only on the ground that Mr Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem
unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if it could be
achieved by sacrificing their lives...This attitude to excuse the
Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well
illustrated by what Mr Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla
riots. The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar
against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave
of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of
opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so
misguided as to pass resolutions of "congratulations to the Moplas on
the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion". Any
person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Moslem
unity. But Mr Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of
establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of
the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them.
He spoke of the Moplas as the "brave God-fearing Moplas who were
fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they
consider as religious ".
As usual, Mr Gandhi failed to produce
any satisfactory response to Ambedkar's serious charge. Mahatmas never
do. The conduct of Gandhi during the Mopla riots, and his views on them
once the carnage had subsided, remain a blot on the Mahatma. Again, they
never form part of our history books.
On the allegiance of a Muslim to his motherland [India], Ambedkar writes:"Among
the tenets one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says
that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a
conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must
prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the
Muslim law and defying the law of the land."
Quoting the following: "The
only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living
under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by
the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet and to
those in authority from among the Musalmans…" Ambedkar adds:
"This must make anyone wishing for a stable government very
apprehensive. But this is nothing to the Muslim tenets which prescribe
when a country is a motherland to the Muslim and when it is
not…According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided into two camps,
Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country
is Dar-ul-lslam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb
when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the
Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the
Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but it
cannot be the land of the 'Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.'
Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by
the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a
non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of
being Dar-ul-lslam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb."It must not be
supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable
of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the
Muslims…It might also be mentioned that Hijrat [emigration] is not the
only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb.
There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade)
by which it becomes "incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of
Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The
world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam),
Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the
other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable
of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-lslam." And just as
there are instances of the Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there
are instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad.”
On a Muslim respecting authority of an elected government, Ambedkar writes:"Willingness
to render obedience to the authority of the government is as essential
for the stability of government as the unity of political parties on the
fundamentals of the state. It is impossible for any sane person to
question the importance of obedience in the maintenance of the state. To
believe in civil disobedience is to believe in anarchy…How far will
Muslims obey the authority of a government manned and controlled by the
Hindus? The answer to this question need not call for much inquiry."
This
view isn't much different from the views of Jinnah and the Muslim
League. Indeed, in the then prevailing climate, engineered or otherwise,
these views could be seen as legitimate from the point of view of an
anxious minority. However, the reason that Ambedkar gives for this
predilection is not at all political but, rather startlingly, religious.
He writes:"To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is
not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a
country which is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given
this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the
Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of
deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority
of government, do not simply exist. But if proof is wanted, there is no
dearth of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender and
what to omit…In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the Hindus
were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget
that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race.”
Ambedkar isn’t done yet. On the lack of reforms in the Muslim community, he writes:"What
can that special reason be? It seems to me that the reason for the
absence of the spirit of change in the Indian Musalman is to be sought
in the peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social
environment which is predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is
always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is
de-musalmanazing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away
he is led to insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without
caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society.
Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in a political environment
which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed
and that political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class.
It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from being
submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is
the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows
outside are backward in the matter of social reform. "Their
energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the
Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought and no
room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is
all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of
communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the
menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious
unity at any cost. The same is the explanation of the political
stagnation in the Muslim community of India."Muslim
politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of
their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community
in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor
Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu
tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will
not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why?
The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight
of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim.
The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against the
landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim
labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against
capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that
any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim
mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby
weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community."
Then,
Ambedkar writes something that would surely confirm him as a certified
Islamophobe and a bigot in the jaundiced eyes of those who have
appropriated him."How Muslim politics has become perverted is
shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in
the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great
agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu
State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed
to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim
States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all
matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect
the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative government can help
the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of
Kashmir the ruler is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are
Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir,
because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power
from a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslim States, the
ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such
States representative government means the transfer of power from a
Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the Muslims support
the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it
in the other. The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not
democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority
rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will
it strengthen them or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them,
they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to
continue in the Muslim States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his
hold upon his Hindu subjects. The political and social stagnation in
the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The
Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the
Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims to
establish their historical position as the ruling community—that in
this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must
suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in
their ranks. If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task
of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do
so, it is because the former are free from communal and political
clashes with rival communities, while the latter are not."
History
for us is either to be hidden or invented. We tell and retell what we
like of it, and of what we don’t, we scrunch it up and slip it under the
mattress, and then perch ourselves cross-legged over it to retell a
little more. We are born storytellers. A lap and a head is all we need.
As for truth? Well, it is not there; it vanished from view; and so it
never happened.
But it did happen. Ambedkar did say these things
on Islam and Indian Muslims. In doing so, he gave a choice to us, for he
knew us only too well. We could either discuss his views on Islam
openly like we do his views on Hinduism, or we could scrunch them up
like a plastic bag and slip it under our mattress. He did not live long
enough to witness the option that we chose but being the seer that he
was he had an inkling. As a preface to his book, he wrote:"I
am not sorry for this reception given to my book. That it is disowned by
the Hindus and unowned by the Muslims is to me the best evidence that
it has the vices of neither, and that from the point of view of
independence of thought and fearless presentation of facts the book is
not a party production. Some people are sore because what I have said
has hurt them. I have not, I confess, allowed myself to be influenced by
fears of wounding either individuals or classes, or shocking opinions
however respectable they may be. I have often felt regret in pursuing
this course, but remorse never.“It might be said that in
tendering advice to both sides, I have used terms more passionate than
they need have been. If I have done so it is because I felt that the
manner of the physician who tries to surprise the vital principle in
each paralyzed organ in order to goad it to action was best suited to
stir up the average Indian who is complacent if not somnolent, who is
unsuspecting if not ill-informed, to realize what is happening. I hope
my effort will have the desired effect."
What words. What
beautiful, forceful, tender words. Here was Ambedkar, trying to goad us
as a physician would paralysed organs. But he misjudged us. We remain
fearful, indifferent, paralysed.
Nations that fear their past fear
their future, and fearful nations worship, never follow its great men
and women. Ambedkar is no exception.

Marhaba/Khushamadeed/Welcome

Dear visitor,If you recognize the following pictures then you are at home. If not then you are welcome as a guest. Here you'll find some tidbits related to some thing called Aligarh Movement with a tilt towards issues related to Science in Islamic context.